<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/f939d0d6f61a0d64</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/egenberger-ultra-vires-proceduralisation/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>No Elegy for Ultra Vires - Why We Must Continue to Institutionalise Ultra Vires Review Even After Egenberger</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Riedl, Benedikt</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2026-01-16</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Egenberger</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>European constitutional law</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Ultra Vires</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>Heiko Sauer recently diagnosed a “course correction in European constitutional law”. In light of the Second Senate’s Egenberger judgment, he paints a picture of a Federal Constitutional Court returning to calmer waters after the seismic aftershocks of the PSPP judgment. As tempting as this interpretation may be – driven by a desire for a harmonious cooperative relationship between courts –, it risks equating the mere absence of open conflict with structural pacification. I would like to both add to and modify Sauer’s thesis: institutionalisation, rather than the “deflation” of review, which just reduces its effectiveness, is the solution.</dc:description>
</dc>
